Is AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D popular?

[yyD70S]

If yours come with a serial # > 400001 (w.e.f 2006), Nikon has "improved" their SWM. My colleague in Tokyo corresponded with Nikon Japan some time back on this matter (frequent "failings of the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 motor).

Unfortunately, I have no longer the Japanese language correspondence between them since my Microsoft Outlook failed me last year.

Actually by the end of the day, we all might be forced to get the 14-24 after our 17-35mm AFS motor give way and Nikon does not have a replacement motor for that.

 

[iamblurblur]

If yours come with a serial # > 400001 (w.e.f 2006), Nikon has "improved" their SWM. My colleague in Tokyo corresponded with Nikon Japan some time back on this matter (frequent "failings of the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 motor).

Unfortunately, I have no longer the Japanese language correspondence between them since my Microsoft Outlook failed me last year.

:bigeyes: oh? u mean the SWM in 17-35 is different motor compare to the later lenses' SWM??? not long ago someone sold his 17-35 close to 1 year old and got nikon to replace his SWM due to some squiky noise coming out of the lens... went to some shop and most of them suggested me to get the 17-55 as they consider 17-35 is now an "old design" lens...:dunno: (based on a DX context)

 

[Henessy]

If yours come with a serial # > 400001 (w.e.f 2006), Nikon has "improved" their SWM. My colleague in Tokyo corresponded with Nikon Japan some time back on this matter (frequent "failings of the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 motor).

Unfortunately, I have no longer the Japanese language correspondence between them since my Microsoft Outlook failed me last year.

Can anyone verify this? As in those whose 17-35 with serial number greater than 400001, does it produce squeky noise?

 

[soeypixels]

from what i know the newer version have more problem

 

[Henessy]

from what i know the newer version have more problem

May I know in terms of?

 

[yyD70S]

It shouldn't be.

It's so simple really. Just ask Nikon Singapore and get them to confirm with their H.O. engineers or you correspond direct.

from what i know the newer version have more problem

 

[jnet6]

So far nv really heard on the bad comments for 17-35.

 

[pgopal]

my fav lens

 

[kennethw]

The old old trinity 20-35mm was the one that did not have SWM. Loved that lens, but sold it a few years ago.

The 17-35mm all have SWM's, hence AF-S. This was a great lens and served me well. Since I decided to completely retire my FE, I don't need the apature ring anymore and have moved to the 14-24mm. I hear a few comments about the 17-35mm being big and heavy, but it is actually smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm. I was a little taken aback when I first handled the 14-24mm.

The 14-24mm is superb throghout the range.

I can't comment on the difference between the 17-35mm and 17-55mm because I have never handled the 17-55mm. Because I still use my F5, I can't afford to get DX lenses.

Another comment that I have is that all SWM's are fragile, if you want something that will not break down (or not so easily), get Manual lenses or the old AF (non AF-S).

Only other comment I have is if you are intending to go FX and 17mm is wide enough for you on DX, then get the 24-70mm, because 17mm on a DX is 25.5mm on an FX so it is reasonably similar if FOV.

 

[Henessy]

The old old trinity 20-35mm was the one that did not have SWM. Loved that lens, but sold it a few years ago.

The 17-35mm all have SWM's, hence AF-S. This was a great lens and served me well. Since I decided to completely retire my FE, I don't need the apature ring anymore and have moved to the 14-24mm. I hear a few comments about the 17-35mm being big and heavy, but it is actually smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm. I was a little taken aback when I first handled the 14-24mm.

The 14-24mm is superb throghout the range.

I can't comment on the difference between the 17-35mm and 17-55mm because I have never handled the 17-55mm. Because I still use my F5, I can't afford to get DX lenses.

Another comment that I have is that all SWM's are fragile, if you want something that will not break down (or not so easily), get Manual lenses or the old AF (non AF-S).

Only other comment I have is if you are intending to go FX and 17mm is wide enough for you on DX, then get the 24-70mm, because 17mm on a DX is 25.5mm on an FX so it is reasonably similar if FOV.

Hi, I thought someone in clubsnap mentioned that AFS is almost indestructable?

 

[psychobiologist]

Hi, I thought someone in clubsnap mentioned that AFS is almost indestructable?

you're kidding me

 

[daftone]

Hi, I thought someone in clubsnap mentioned that AFS is almost indestructable?

That someone please volunteer his 17-35 for us to run some tests on it. I will provide the hammer.

 

[Henessy]

That someone please volunteer his 17-35 for us to run some tests on it. I will provide the hammer.

Actually what I mean is that it should not break down easily. Not refering to physical indestructablility.

 

[photobum]

Hi, I thought someone in clubsnap mentioned that AFS is almost indestructable?

Same went for the Titanic. She was claimed to be unsinkable.

 

[jnet6]

Actually what I mean is that it should not break down easily. Not refering to physical indestructablility.

all electronics have lifespan

 

[soeypixels]

May I know in terms of?

swm
..............

 

[Big Kahuna]

If yours come with a serial # > 400001 (w.e.f 2006), Nikon has "improved" their SWM. My colleague in Tokyo corresponded with Nikon Japan some time back on this matter (frequent "failings of the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 motor).

Unfortunately, I have no longer the Japanese language correspondence between them since my Microsoft Outlook failed me last year.

Heng....Mine is 403670....no problem so far :lovegrin:

 

[Big Kahuna]

from what i know the newer version have more problem

What is the problem? :think:

 

[daftone]

What is the problem? :think:

Getting no love from the masses. Everyone loves the younger brother.

14-24 is too specialized in terms of uses compared to the 17-35.

 

[desking]

14-24 is too specialized in terms of uses compared to the 17-35.[/QUOTE]

Hey, guys... just been to Lxxx... the price is $25xx, more expensive than 14-24/24-70...

Is it worth the buy?